Don't blame site owners and service that is trying to help them. Blame the fact that 90% of today's Internet traffic is bots
- site owners can have protection as long as it doesn't inconvenience me.
Replace "me" with "legitimate users" and replace "inconvenience" with "very aggressively inconvenience or entirely block".
Then yeah you have it.
They're also essentially a deanonymization reverse proxy that can track everyone's browsing history and decide whether you get to see websites based on social credit.
But I don't think they care if they block firefox users, or people who delete cookies, or VPN users, or Tor users, or people who resist fingerprinting, or people who block ads, etc.
I guess whatever revenue you lose you make up for in a lower hosting bill. I just go to your competitor that doesn’t have the horrible UX. Usually those websites also tend to have much more optimized web pages too so it is an all around better experience.
Many of my websites get 98% of their traffic from bots and bad actors, but it doesn’t really matter because the extra load of all these fake requests is absolutely negligible. I have a hard time understanding how someone would be bothered by an extra 50k requests a day. That’s less than a request per second. Most of the sites on even the weakest VM’s can easily do 10r/s these days.
if someone can foot the bill then I happily let them use it for free but its coming from own pocket
Point being, it's a commercial subverting the Internet from inside, reshaping it to better serve the interests of commerce. It is indeed protection, but it's accomplished by reducing variance. 99% of legitimate commerce on the Internet follows the same patterns, use a small subset of possibilities offered by the technology - so why not just block the remaining 1% that doesn't fit and call it a day? It will stop most of the threats to running businesses on the Internet. The 1% of legitimate commerce that doesn't fit the pattern? It's not being ignored per se, just pressured to adapt and conform to the majority.
What is being ignored is that the Internet is not just a place of commerce, and non-commercial use cases, ideas such as empowering people to better their lives, are gradually becoming impossible, as fundamental Internet infrastructure becomes inhospitable for them.
Some of us still remember the Internet being more than just a virtual mall, and are unhappy about it gradually becoming one. And it's not like CloudFlare, et al. are hostile to non-commercial interests as a matter of principle - it's just out of scope for them.
Your second paragraph talks about other (non-commercial) sites. I think I'm missing the link here. Why would the admins of such sites resort to Cloudflare if 'fundamental Internet infrastructure becomes inhospitable for them' by making that choice? They could very well choose to implement their own or no measures at all.
I think the issue is that the general threat level has massively increased compared to the past - not in terms of sophistication but frequency/scale. But that's a consequence of widespread adoption, nothing Cloudflare in particular is responsible for.
Marketing and free tiers.
But my point is that Cloudflare is addressing threats that predominantly affect businesses, and does so well, but the way it does is effectively changing the whole Internet to be more hospitable for commerce, and less hospitable for any other kind of use.